Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 May 19

= May 19 =

How to build an outline of a talk at a political level?
¿cómo construyo un esquema de un conversatorio a nivel político? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.119.83 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ¿Qué? Lo siento, no entiendo amigo español. [What? Sorry, I do not understand Spanish friend.] "How do I build an outline of a talk at a political level?" [Google translation of OPs' question] --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should've asked at the Spanish WP... Chevymontecarlo . 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre. Le sugiero que envíe su pregunta allí en vez. And strangely enough, the IP is from Peru, so you would think that unless they deliberately sought out the English wiki, the default one would be in Spanish, right? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they accidentally typed in eN.Wiki rather than eS.Wiki. At least I now know how to use Google Translate! ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't rely on it too much for anything beyond simple sentences, more often than not it gives incorrect translations. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, never use it for homework! I found out the hard way! :D Chevymontecarlo . 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, have they asked at the Spanish WP? If not, please ask at the Spanish WP, if you can understand me... If someone else could translate that and then add it to here, that'd be great. Translation is blocked on the computer I'm currently using. Chevymontecarlo . 12:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 24.189... has already suggested in Spanish that they ask at the Spanish WP. Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Si quiere una respuesta en español, debe hacer su pregunta aquí. Marco polo (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the Spanish wikipedia has a reference desk. Not many non-English languages do - and those that do tend to be kinda pathetic.  Sadly, we're not set up to answer questions in other languages here - so there isn't much we can do to help. SteveBaker (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Marco's link actually does led you the the Spanish Wiki Ref Desk. They have one desk for all topics, and they also take on some "Why was my article deleted" questions, and are careful to refuse to give medical/legal advice. They appear to do a fine job, with s smaller number of questioners and volunteers than here. Edison (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want an answer in English, I am guessing that by conversatorio you mean something like a brainstorming session. Depending on the political topics your brainstorming session will address, you could create a structure or outline by listing the topics you want to address, and perhaps breaking each topic into smaller subtopics or questions. If this does not respond to your question, please restate your question more clearly in English.  Marco polo (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

South Mountain High School Notable Alumni
https://admin.xosn.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=3500&ATCLID=96352 The Link For Barry Wagner South Mountain High School graduate now works For Y.D.I. in Phoenix, AZ helping troubled youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.21.21 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you got a question? --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keynote Paper
what is a keynote paper? How is it different from a paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthik1809 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See keynote and come back if you still have questions. --Tango (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keynote speaker' is one of those buzzwords that is used very frequently...it just means it is the most important part of something, for example, a paper or speech written by somebody considered to be one of the leading experts in their field. GaryReggae (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more than that. The keynote speaker is someone (usually very prestigious and respected) that speaks first and sets the tone for the conference. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...apart from the entity organising the conference, who had previously informed them what the conference is about. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm presuming that's where the Apple presentation program gets its name from - I should really stop hijacking threads, my replies get nothing done.... Chevy monte  carlo  06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Youtube and copyright
A couple years ago, I uploaded a short (<30 seconds) clip to Youtube of the scene from Wayne's World where Dana (a la Garth) plays the drums. A few days ago, it was removed due to a claim of copyright infringement from Paramount. Now I know Wikipedia does not offer legal advice, and I am not asking for any -- but is it possible to argue that the video was only uploaded under the guise of fair use, and should not have been removed? Keep in mind that this is not because I'm planning on fighting Youtube or Paramount about it (I know that it's absolutely pointless, considering how tenacious Youtube is about this nonsense); I'm just curious as to whether or not Paramount actually had a legitimate right to remove it. I read the article (and paid close attention the the "common misconceptions" bit), but like all documentation of copyright laws, it's vague. From what I read there, I'd say that A.) the clip was not long or substantial enough to really infringe on any major part of the movie, B.) it certainly didn't net a profit for me (that wouldn't make the case, I know, but it's much different than directly stealing the scene and, say, using it in a new movie), and C.) it's twenty Goddamn years old. I don't believe Paramount is still producing new copies of Wayne's World for people to buy, so who really cares?

Anyway. Sorry for the wall-of-text, but I thought I'd give a bit of detail. Again, this is not a cry for legal advice, just morbid curiosity on my part. Copyright holders can be real assholes when it comes to Youtube, and Youtube is notorious for bending over the instant anyone claims copyright, but I don't know. Does anyone else think this was overkill, and just another instance of big media walking all over the consumer? --69.144.20.28 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear...you are asking for legal advice; saying you're not doesn't make it so. That said, in these circumstances, plenty of people won't care and will tell you what you're asking for. I shall look forward to which side wins the inevitable discussion, which I shall not be a part of since I know nothing about copyright law. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not legal advice, it's a question related to law. There is a significant difference. There's absolutely zero chance of Youtube reversing their decision, so why would I bother? --69.144.20.28 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Can I put forward this legal argument in my defence?" That's legal advice. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Again, it's not a "defense" -- it's simply a question. Do you honestly think I'm going to try to fight both Youtube and Paramount for something so irrelevant? Asking questions about chicken pox isn't medical advice, nor are the ones I presented legal advice. You said yourself that you know nothing of copyright law, so I don't think it's very fair for you to label a perfectly legitimate request for comment as a plea for "advice". Just because something pertains to a particular subject does not mean that it is a part of that subject. Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice, but that's not to say that editors cannot comment on legal happenings. As I said: there is a difference. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I think you're going to do with the information isn't relevant. And if you'd asked "Could I use (technique here) to treat chickenpox?" (which would be the medical version of your question, "Could I use fair use as a legal defence against Paramount?") then yes...that would be medical advice. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I suddenly distinctly remember why I stopped editing here. The bureaucracy and stickler attitude of some makes it such an uncomfortable, rigid place; it used to be something better. It's not about opening every interpretation of a supposed rule and using it against something that you think may have a slim possibility of being slightly related to that rule. It's about being helpful. I'd comment on your contribution history and attitude on the reference desk, but why bother? No one understands anymore. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure commenting on someone's previous actions to judge present ones is a logical fallacy of some kind. Either way, it's irrelevant; that IP address is used by a college, shared by a few hundred people. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be a logical fallacy to assume that if Willy on Wheels were to create another batch of accounts, they would most likely be for vandalism? I don't think you at all understand what a fallacy is, nor what I was saying. Learning from the past is the only thing that prepares us for the future. And no, I was not referring to the contributions of the IP address. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Try searching and asking at YouTube's community help forum, link: . Not quite addressing your questions, but there I have seen advice to members considering challenging a copyright take down (there exists a procedure), and I have also seen a particular member get YouTube reinstate their videos (after a few false starts) which contained short clips of copyrighted films, but this member had used them as part of a film analysis, ie with detailed commentary. Good luck. -84user (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Fair Use article : "To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative."
 * It sounds like you were just putting up the clip for its originally intended entertainment value. If you weren't using it as part of a parody, or an art critique, or a movie review, or something that you, personally, were creating, you're going to have a hard time justifying your use as a "fair" one.
 * This isn't a minor nit-pick, it's the whole point of the "Fair Use" doctrine! The idea is to allow people to create new works without unreasonable restriction. APL (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, if the clip with entirely from the movie then it is not fair use. You aren't actually using the clip at all, just distributing it without permission. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a semi-famous piece from a somewhat significant cult movie, and I would think it would serve as a good example of Wayne's World-type humor. I'll definitely concede that it's not "educational" in the traditional sense, but if someone wanted to understand the attitude of the film (or perhaps reference the scene for some reason: Dana Carvey's real-life ability to play the drums? I don't know), it'd be a decent starting point. You can listen to samples of songs on iTunes if you're curious, so I've never understood why you can't watch clips if you're curious about a movie as well. I'm not about to piece together the entire movie in seventeen different uploads, but it was short, and it was a nonsense scene. And of course Fair Use is irrelevant to the media lords anyway, because it's always been about profit. I don't think a half-minute of silliness is particularly damaging to whatever their monetary gain may be, so I didn't quite understand Paramount's problem. (Note that I do understand entirely what you all are saying, I'm just explaining in a bit more detail why I disagreed with the removal in the first place). --69.144.20.28 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It it was included as part of a description of the film in order to illustrate some point about its style of humour, that might qualify as fair use, but the clip on its own doesn't. You can view samples of films for free - they are called trailers. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As a minor factual quibble, it's worth noting that a trivial search on Amazon reveals that new copies of Wayne's World are indeed being manufactured and sold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was unaware. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The real question is, does YouTube care enough in order to defy the takedown order? Probably not—especially since actual fair use must be used as a defense (in court), and is not straightforward. As for why Paramount cares—they probably do still produce copies of Wayne's World to buy (you can get it on Blu-Ray, which is pretty recent!), and anyway, they don't really need to have a compelling reason to care. The movie isn't ancient, the property isn't dead, they probably do make royalties off of it regularly. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course Youtube wouldn't bother to put it back up; of this I was certain. I was just curious as to whether or not it seemed a bit picky on Paramount's part to anyone else. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The law that YouTube is operating under is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, where a copyright owner can send YouTube a "takedown notice". The alleged copyright violator can respond in various ways.  If you don't respond in any way by a certain deadline, then you're not following the DMCA's procedures, so the takedown will be permanent.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Err, I'm not sure about the end. The takedown notice lets the host (in this case, YouTube), avoid being sued if they comply. If they don't comply, then they can be sued. YouTube doesn't have to take it down, if they really think it is fair use. But there's a chance in that case that they'd have to go to court over it. Which in the case of Wayne's World clips, is probably not really in their interest. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it is possible to get nearly any video removed within a day just by submitting enough copyright claims -- I really can't blame Youtube for being paranoid, lest the courts order something drastic like reviewing every existing movie and manually checking new additions (you never know), but it's frustrating sometimes nonetheless. It's enormously difficult to get the videos put back up, as well. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia article has a lot of links which are supposed to try and help you determine whether what you're doing is likely to be fair use. They're probably the next step having read the article. BTW, Youtube almost definitely doesn't consider fair use or anything of that sort. If they receive a complaint perhaps they check if it's in accordance with the way laid out under law (i.e. a simple did they cross the 't's and dot the 'i's) if that, and then they take it down. I suspect they probably don't even check the video to see if it's even what the alleged copyright holder said it was in the complaint. From Youtube's POV, particularly for the original complaint it isn't simply about being paranoid or avoiding the costs of a court case. It's about keeping all their costs to a minimum and while they don't want to alienate their userbase, they also don't want to spend much time (which would also require someone with more expertise i.e. would cost more) on each request which at a random guess I expect 99% are probably legitimate with no possible fair use justification. They leave that up to the original contributor.
 * And for that matter Paramount likely doesn't consider fair use (even though a judge said they should ), similarly to Youtube they probably don't consider much at all, it's likely a fairly automated system with some sort of 'monkey' (no offense intended to people who actually do such a job) who just takes a quick look and confirms anything tagged by their system looks like it may be a copyright violation (the person may very well know less about fair use then you).
 * Thank you for the link. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note also that ParamountViacom is currently suing YouTube i;e; Google for over a billion dollars for copyright violations. YouTube would definitely be extra careful about Paramount copyvios. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And not just active copyvios, but the perception of tolerating copyvios. If I recall part of the suits in question are that YouTube is rather passive about copyvios and tolerates them quite willingly. So looking like they truly care about copyvio is one way to appear better in court (e.g., saying "we complied with 99.9% of takedown requests [regardless of whether they were fair use or not]" will look good to a judge). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what makes it frustrating, yes. And the thing is, I can understand Youtube's problem with the whole thing, but it's still saddening. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use is a legal doctrine but a guise is an artful or simulated semblance. We are deeply moved by your tragic account of the cruel treatment you have suffered at the hands of heartless corporate henchmen intent on denying you your holy right to make them use the server they paid for to distribute free for you a film clip for which you never paid what it cost to make. Your frustration is understandable and should now be sufficiently ventilated. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a figure of speech, and everyone reading knew exactly what I meant, but thank you for the context-Nazism nonetheless. Way to be a dick, as well. It was just a question, and not once did I act like a victim or whine about the circumstances. I was curious, and requested some input. You also missed the point entirely, for the record. And as long as we're being Nazis here, I should probably let you know that commas are your friend, and will help people navigate your walls of text. Nothing gave you the right to make a comment so drippingly sarcastic and vile. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: guise is a simulated semblance, yes, and fair use is a doctrine -- since when is it not possible to simulate a doctrine, especially one so vague? Fair use doesn't have literal, specific rules, you know, it's just an idea. --69.144.20.28 (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hereby invoke Godwin's law...the discussion is now over - you lose! SteveBaker (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Podcast question.
Maybe this should be asked on the Computing Desk - I'm not sure. I am a bit of a technosaurus and have just purchased an iPod nano version 5. I am pretty confident about copying and transferring music and creating playlists etc., but have just discovered Podcasts, hence my query. I discovered a 3 series free language course which I thought would really help my conversation when on the Continent, and after an initial struggle, managed to download the many episodes and transfer them to my iPod. But no matter how hard I try to re-order them on my PC, whether in the Podcast List or in the Playlists after I transfer them, I always end up with the most recent episode playing first and the initial episode playing last, which clearly, in a language course, is daft. What I don't get is how, when I upload a music CD to my iTunes library, it too arrives as last in first out - but when I re-order them in my Playlists, they stay that way. So if I can re-order music lists that stay that way, why can't I do it with Podcast episodes? Like I said, I was born before television! 92.30.74.114 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Computer Ref Desk is the right place to ask this. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should probably go and ask your question there. Chevy  monte  carlo  04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bench pressing
I just turned 15 last week and decided to see how much I could bench press, I got 175 and I weigh 135. Is that good or what?

(I can't take full credit, because if it wasn't for my God then I never would have gotten to that). Thanks Taynk (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing those are pounds ? Personally, I'd think that God could bench at least 180. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm...yes they are pounds, and uh ya He can, it's the fact that He did it through me that makes it difficult :D       Taynk (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what we think. Self-esteem comes from within. Vranak (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could God make a bench press so heavy that even he could not powerlift it? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And maybe have it exceeding the speed of light just for fun> ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note he didn't say "God", he said "HIS God". I'm guessing his God is Atlas, the God of Heavy Lifting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would anyone care to actually answer the OP? I'm assuming he just wants to know how that compares to some kind of average. It's the kind of question that does actually have an answer. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters, there's Progression of the bench press world record. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope! I'm a psychologist by nature, so I get straight underneath the question to deal with why it was asked. The question itself is far too pedestrian to be of much interest, wouldn't you agree? I mean, lifting weights... really. Who cares! If he lifts a great amount, should he feel like a hot shot? I don't think so. Vranak (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EXRX has a bench press standards chart that are a general guide to how advanced you are (there are other charts for military press, squat, deadlift, and clean if you're interested). Yes, 175lb bench press for a 135lb person is a very solid effort.--droptone (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...or credit her God for extraordinary effort. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

now umm you guys are kinda strange about how you are all talking about the God thing. I didnt say that I saw God bench pressing 175 lbs. I said "if it wasn't for my God I wouldn't have gotten that). and thank you vimescarret apparently your the first one to actually get the question. and vranak I don't want to feel like a "hot shot", I just wanted to know what you think. Thank you Droptone. and Cuddlyable3, I am not a girl. Oh one thing I forgot to mention that might be important to mention for my weight factor is that I am 5'8" Taynk (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)